Ok, so fullscreen program crashes (Fallout NV), I'm thrown back to the desktop and greeted with a "this program has crashed" whatever message with a close button, except I can't click on the close button, see an opaque window screen on the bottom, but can't go anywhere else... I can do a ctrl alt delete, can 'open' the task manager, but it doesn't open the task manager, it just stays on that one stupid screen with the close button that I can't click nor do anything about.. Tried alt+f4, escape, enter, alt+c, nothing works. Yay! Can someone explain to me what is the benefit of that new feature? Because it seems pretty stupid to me. The only way I managed to get out of that is signing out and then signing back in, of course it closed all my other opened apps. Way to go Windows8! Can't even crash decently...

What about a close button on the top right like there's been on all apps for more than 20 years?

The idea is that closing applications isn't something you need to do. You've just grown accustomed to that idea. But rather than providing a mechanism for you to do it like that (which wouldn't break people out of that habit), by default there isn't a standard affordance to do so (like on iOS, etc.). Now, if you really need to close it for some reason, you can. However, as it's not a common or normal thing to do, the UI doesn't make affordances for it by default. So that means not using chrome in a wasteful manner.

It's like garbage in your house. You don't need to throw it out, you can leave it in your house, but after a while, it clutters up, starts to smell like crap, etc. It's the same thing in the UI, if I open 5 things I'm not going to use again, it uses up memory for nothing

There's the problem. Your analogy doesn't hold. In modern apps it *doesn't clutter* up. it doesn't *start to smell like crap*. It doesn't *use up memory for nothing* etc. etc.

Indeed, it's the exact opposite. The PLM will absolutely suspend (or outright kill) the app if it needs the resources. That's one of the points of the new app model. As i mentioned before, you're using reasoning based on things you learned about how things were *a long time ago* to influence how you expect to use your computer today. The same issues don't hold.

You're missing the point. It adds useless process and clutters up the process list, opened apps list, etc. Did you miss that?

GirgleMirt wrote:

it clutters your process list, it clutters your alt-tab, it could potentially launch some form of refresh which might use up bandwidth/CPU/memory, etc. There's no point to it.

Metasyntactic wrote:

GirgleMirt wrote:

Metasyntactic wrote:

GirgleMirt wrote:

Because of course, adding a user is a pc customisation. It's not something you should be able to do under 'administrative tools', nor under 'user accounts' of the control panel... Noooooo..

1) You can do it under 'user accounts' in the desktop control panel.

No you can't.

Yes you can. It's here:Click on Manage User Accounts and say 'Add...'

You can make a standard or adminstrator user.

I've covered this already:

GirgleMirt wrote:

What are you talking about ... XP, Vista, etc. Control Panel -> Administrative tools -> manage my computer -> Users -> right click create new user. That's gone in Windows 8. No more fucking users there... I go to control panel, user accounts, and see no fucking add user option there. As is, it's mislabeled. I do not want to manage another account. There is NO OTHER ACCOUNT. I want to CREATE another user account.

Create: "to bring into existence"Manage: "to work upon or try to alter for a purpose"

If I do not have a car and want a car, I will go buy or create a car. I will not go manage another car. Once I have a second car, only then I will be able to manage my other car. If I only have one car, it is not fucking logical to manage my other car(s) when it does not exist... LOGIC ...!!!

The point is that it's utterly retarded. There shouldn't be TWO distinct places to manage and and create users, it should be at ONE place. What is not evident here? It's been this way for 15+ years, THE CONTROL PANEL, where you can set the multiple settings of your computer. Now there's the control panel, and they've added yet another settings section under 'pc settings' which is just absolutely fucking stupid. Not only is it fucking redundant, it's fucking retarded because half the settings are in one place and the other half in the other.

And to make sure you grasp the point: No you can't,it's a link and it leads you to the metro/modern interface whatever it's called, and it's under a mislabled section... Do you understand the principle of a link? If you click on a link in an Arstechnica article, say to microsoft.com, the microsoft page is not an Arstechnica page, it's been linked from Arstechnica. A link! There's a huge difference...

Indeed, it's the exact opposite. The PLM will absolutely suspend (or outright kill) the app if it needs the resources. That's one of the points of the new app model. As i mentioned before, you're using reasoning based on things you learned about how things were *a long time ago* to influence how you expect to use your computer today. The same issues don't hold.

You're missing the point. It adds useless process

I don't know what that even means. What is a 'useless' process?

Quote:

and clutters up the process list,

I don't know what that means. What's 'the process list', and why on earth does it matter to me?

Metasyntactic wrote:

GirgleMirt wrote:

Metasyntactic wrote:

GirgleMirt wrote:

Because of course, adding a user is a pc customisation. It's not something you should be able to do under 'administrative tools', nor under 'user accounts' of the control panel... Noooooo..

1) You can do it under 'user accounts' in the desktop control panel.

No you can't.

Yes you can. It's here:Click on Manage User Accounts and say 'Add...'

You can make a standard or adminstrator user.

I've covered this already:

Create: "to bring into existence"Manage: "to work upon or try to alter for a purpose"[/quote][/quote]I'm really sorry that you're so hung up on the user of a single word like 'manage' to encompass many tasks (like, adding, removing, or changing things about users on the system).

Quote:

The point is that it's utterly retarded. There shouldn't be TWO distinct places to manage and and create users, it should be at ONE place. What is not evident here? It's been this way for 15+ years, THE CONTROL PANEL, where you can set the multiple settings of your computer.

But you're incorrect. Even when we just had the control panel there were multiple ways you could do things. There were at least two supported ways *already* that one could use to add a user.

2) The expected location to do this now us just under 'PC Settings | Users' in the modern interface.

"The modern interface" wtf ... So now we have the 'modern interface' and the old fucking one? Why?

Probably time constraints.

Quote:

Have fucking ONE where you can do everything, why have two in two seperate locations?

Likely time constraints.[/quote]Then that's fucking pathetic. I never signed up for an incomplete OS, I thought I was getting a full working product, not a half backed POS that's been rushed out the door...

Quote:

Plus, it provides a workaround path for users with devices that have drivers and whatnot that plug into the old system. Ideally, for me, it will be gone ASAP.

Windows has always sucked for having so many configuration dialogs not really reachable through the control panel, administrative tools, etc., but the idea should always be to consolidate all the settings page in ONE place...

Doing a new GUI and leaving half of the old settings GUIs where you can only configure a minority of computer settings, while keeping the old one but removing many functionality of it, is just plain stupid.

I don't see the fucking need for a new 'pc settings' category. It's fucking retarded, it's always been the control panel. What the fuck is the point 'PC settings'... And note again the fucking redundance and fuckign splitting of every god damn motherfucking settings... In the right popup menu you have "Settings", which you can then choose control panel and pc settings... Again fucking stupid...

Anyhow, right pop menu, you go under settings, and you can choose "Personalize", and under pc settings, you have what? "Personalize", with a whole different fucking slew of personalization... Again, WHAT THE FUCK... That's once again retarded...

Any why the hell do you get back to the Start menu when you go to right popup menu, then pc settings, and change pc settings... You've not got through the start menu... Closing it should send you back to the desktop, not the start...

Uh... so what? Tons of the control panel is links. It's been that way for ages.

The idea is that you get taken into a general area of interest (like 'User Accounts'), you get shown general information, and you're provided with many links that either allow you to perform some sort of action, or which provide you with more details.

This is how Windows has worked for ages.

Note: if you don't like that you can add people from the control panel. That's fine. You don't have to use it. Just use the new PC settings for this task.

This is similar to how you didn't have to use the command line tools when Windows became graphical. They were still there if you cared to use them (some are still there *today*), but you can use the new modern versions instead.

Over time, these may or may not go away depending on how much use they have. It will depend on a variety of factors.

Also note that you're being a bit hypcritical here. Previously you slammed MS for not leaving in older capabilities that you wanted. However, now you're slamming them for leaving in older capabilities.

If Microsoft can't be consistent between it's pro and non-pro versions, it's again another one of it's faults. And it appears that it is, from this labeling, to being able to add a user from the computer management... Looks like Windows 7 had the same 'issue', but that doesn't excuse Windows 8...

Same for any other incoherency, the fact that some other OS might do the same thing doesn't excuse MS, so there's no point in constantly defending MS by saying others do it too...

Then that's fucking pathetic. I never signed up for an incomplete OS, I thought I was getting a full working product,

You're always getting this from every OS vendor. There is no such thing as a 'complete OS'. You're always getting a product that is the result of constraints of the market and ability to execute within that.

Quote:

Windows has always sucked for having so many configuration dialogs not really reachable through the control panel, administrative tools, etc., but the idea should always be to consolidate all the settings page in ONE place...

I'm not sure why you're telling this to me. As you cna see in the part you quoted, i said that i desire this to be gone as well.

Quote:

I don't see the fucking need for a new 'pc settings' category. It's fucking retarded, it's always been the control panel. What the fuck is the point 'PC settings'...

Obviously, to be simpler and easier to handle for the vast majority of users that the control panel is too complicated for.

"As is, it's mislabeled. I do not want to manage another account. There is NO OTHER ACCOUNT. I want to CREATE another user account."

It doesn't say 'manage another account'. It says 'manage user accounts'. Adding/removing accounts is part of managing then.

No it does say manage another account...

I can't repro this locally.

Quote:

If Microsoft can't be consistent between it's pro and non-pro versions, it's again another one of it's faults. And it appears that it is, from this labeling, to being able to add a user from the computer management... Looks like Windows 7 had the same 'issue', but that doesn't excuse Windows 8...

That's odd. You've gone unhinged at times insisting that Win8 has F'ed things up, and it should be more like Win7. However, if Win7 did the same thing, and it wasn't a problem for you, then why is it a problem now?

If you understood things before, then what changed?

Quote:

Same for any other incoherency, the fact that some other OS might do the same thing doesn't excuse MS, so there's no point in constantly defending MS by saying others do it too...

Actually there is. it's to show you that your expectations may absolutely be unreasonable.

You're purchasing a product in a market with certain characteristics. Those characteristics include large volume targetting of customers who *are very likely* not to be like you. As such, you need to realize that hte OS may not cater or be designed to be optimal for your needs. Lord knows no OS out there has ever met all of *my* needs for example. Insisting that hte OS be designed around your issues and peeves (such as 'process list clutter'*) is simply bizarre. If you're an high paying customer, then that's more reasonable. But as someone paying a couple dozen dollars in a pool of billions, you have to realize that you may get something built with different priorities than yours.

-

* I especially find these sorts of complaints to be bizarre. All modern OSs are moving in certain directions because of hte clear and consistent feedback from a far larger base of users that they work better for their needs. And you want MS to cater to random things like this?

Indeed, it's the exact opposite. The PLM will absolutely suspend (or outright kill) the app if it needs the resources. That's one of the points of the new app model. As i mentioned before, you're using reasoning based on things you learned about how things were *a long time ago* to influence how you expect to use your computer today. The same issues don't hold.

But you're incorrect. Even when we just had the control panel there were multiple ways you could do things. There were at least two supported ways *already* that one could use to add a user.

Wow you're still missing the point that it's not under the control panel but in the 'modern' metro interface?! 1) It's under a mislabeled section so unless you're aware that what you're looking for is there, you won't find it.2) Again, it's not under the control panel in Windows 8, when you click it, it opens the metro/modern interface, but that functionality is gone from the control panel, it's been taken over by the metro/modern interface GUI.3) But only part of the user-management that is, now the user management is split up in multiple places and you have to go from one user interface to a completely different one... (one is viewable from the desktop as a dialog, the other opens a fullscreen 'app' with a bunch of unrelated 'PC settings', and then you need to close that shit down to go back to desktop and the rest of the user management... It's retarded.

Metasyntactic wrote:

From the dictionary:Manage: Administer and regulate (resources under one's control):

You are administering and regulating the users on your system. These user accounts are resources under your control. Adding or remove it part of that administration.

I'm sorry you're hung up on this word. It seems completely reasonable to me to use it as per the dictionary definition.

What word would you suggest replacing it with?

In Vista french (work... ) it's "gestion des usagers"; or user management, which is fine. Manager another account is not fine.

Btw, I have the personal Win8, and as I've mentioned, there appears to be some differences to the Pro version. Of course... But you'd think it would be better distinctions such as mislabeling some sections and removing other sections like users/groups from computer management...

"As is, it's mislabeled. I do not want to manage another account. There is NO OTHER ACCOUNT. I want to CREATE another user account."

It doesn't say 'manage another account'. It says 'manage user accounts'. Adding/removing accounts is part of managing then.

No it does say manage another account...

I can't repro this locally.

Quote:

If Microsoft can't be consistent between it's pro and non-pro versions, it's again another one of it's faults. And it appears that it is, from this labeling, to being able to add a user from the computer management... Looks like Windows 7 had the same 'issue', but that doesn't excuse Windows 8...

That's odd. You've gone unhinged at times insisting that Win8 has F'ed things up, and it should be more like Win7. However, if Win7 did the same thing, and it wasn't a problem for you, then why is it a problem now?

If you understood things before, then what changed?

I don't recalls saying 8 should be more like Win7, I don't even have much experience with 7, been using XP and Vista. But again, the fact that other OS or other versions of OS have faults isn't an excuse for 8.

Oh so Windows 95/98 had this problem, and the same problem still exists in Windows8, your complaint is invalid. Ugh no, my complaint is even more valid because it should have been fixed 10+ years ago, and the fact that it's still not fixed makes the whole deal worst (mouse acceleration/'improve mouse accuracy' which I didn't know was the same...)

Again, no other OS is perfect, and it's not about others doing something or not doing something, it's about Windows8...

"Went with 8, I guess I'll just have to adjust, and yeah for the same price might as well get the latest... Thanks!"

I remember the days where geeks relished a UI change as opposed to the pearl clutching going on in this thread

They relished the changes as they were generally seen as improvements. Many think Microsoft has taken a step back with Modern. Take the Modern version of IE. IMO it's not nearly as fluid to use as it once was. In an effort to be minimalistic they've made it more frustrating to use. For example tabs and the address bar are hidden and have to be specifically called up by moving the mouse to the top (for tabs) or bottom (for the address bar) and then a right click. Quickly moving from site to site is no longer as fluid as it once was. While the minimalist approach may be desirable for devices with touch and/or small screens (I have a Windows Phone 8 and like it very much) it isn't for devices that are non-touch and/or large screens. In the way desktop interfaces are not optimal for touch devices the contrary appears to be the case too. Touch interfaces are not optimal for the desktop.

I've been using Windows 8 for a few months now and I'm still undecided about it. There are many things I like about the new OS. But there are a lot of annoyances, primarily with Modern, which dampen my enthusiasm for it. I'm hoping these are version 1.0 related issues and Microsoft will smooth them over with time.

this

I want improvements, not inane bullshit about a new dumbed down control panel for tablet users who can't handle the fucking control panel, oh, which has now been neutered btw because now part of the settings are under pc settings and you've got to navigate through these settings through these tablet interfaces, oh, and we've moved shit around to confuse you and put things where they don't belong, like shut down your computer is now under settings and "add a new user" is under "manager another account", oh and we'll open that shit up in the new modern tablet interface to piss you off, oh, and we won't allow you to close it, this window you have to drag from the top, which wont' work for the start window because it's not a window like that new GUI 'app' window metro wahtever that you can't close with escape, but the start you can close to escape, sometimes, if you've been to your desktop first, and then once you're done with the metro pc settings thing, we'll return you to the fuckign start window instead of the desktop to mess you up, etc etc etc...

I don't understand the complaint here. alt-tab is already sorted by z order. So the ones you're actively using and switching to the start. So the app you're referring to isn't cluttering anything. It's just there so if you want to go back to it, you can. But it's out of the way and not interfering with the apps i'm commonly used.

I'm not sure what the rolleyes are about. I use this command all day long. And i've never felt the need to close stuff (before or after modern was introduced). It's the same reason i don't get bothered about the list of apps in the iPhone task switch list either. Why would i? If i'm using the apps a lot then i can switch quickly to it. If i'm use it less often, then i still can get to it, it just takes more steps.

Define 'improvements'? Without knowing what is important to you, it's impossible to tell if the OS provides this stuff for you.

Quote:

users who can't handle the fucking control panel,

This goes back to waht i was saying before. Windows targets a userbase of more than a billion people. If it upsets you that work has been done to improve things for a segment of that userbase that is *not like you*, then there's not much that can be done to help.

Quote:

oh, which has now been neutered btw because now part of the settings are under pc settings and you've got to navigate through these settings through these tablet interfaces, oh, and we've moved shit around to confuse you and put things where they don't belong, like shut down your computer is now under settings and "add a new user" is under "manager another account",

"add a new user" is under "PC Settings | Users" which strikes me as fairly reasonable and simple. I also know from personal experience that the new settings screen score much better on usability than the older one for most user groups. As such, it seems like a fairly positive "improvement" to the system, for the large majority of users which find the old one overcomplicated.

I don't understand the complaint here. alt-tab is already sorted by z order. So the ones you're actively using and switching to the start. So the app you're referring to isn't cluttering anything. It's just there so if you want to go back to it, you can. But it's out of the way and not interfering with the apps i'm commonly used.

I said not closing apps adds clutter which you argued does not. Clutter: To fill or cover with scattered or disordered things that impede movement or reduce effectiveness <a room cluttered with toys> —often used with up. That's one example.

Quote:

I'm not sure what the rolleyes are about.

Because I find it doubtful that you did not understand what process and/or list was... Both are very common concepts and have been around in all OSes, Linux/Unix, Mac, Windows, etc.

Quote:

I use this command all day long. And i've never felt the need to close stuff (before or after modern was introduced).

Then you must not use a lot of programs... Because alt-tabbing with anything more than 5-10 apps/windows is a severe pain in the butt...

Quote:

It's the same reason i don't get bothered about the list of apps in the iPhone task switch list either. Why would i? If i'm using the apps a lot then i can switch quickly to it. If i'm use it less often, then i still can get to it, it just takes more steps.

So you don't mind a lack of efficiency. Thanks for making that clear.

Quote:

you said it should be more like the previous versions of Windows:

"It's been this way for 15+ years, THE CONTROL PANEL, where you can set the multiple settings of your computer."

Then yes it makes sense. If the control panel exists to set your PC settings, you do not need an entirely new section labeled 'PC settings' where you set some PC settings, it's redundant because the control panel already exists.

Quote:

Except, as i mentioned, you're incorrect. Over the past 15 years there have been versions of Windows that have had multiple ways of doing things *including ways outside of the control panel*.

I never said it shouldn't have multiple ways of doing things. I said they shouldn't split settings between two distinct and redundant PC settings sections.

PC setting has always been the control panel. The new Metro PC settings isn't even an improvement to the control panel because it's more than incomplete. IT doesn't do a tenth of the control panel. It seems just to be there for the retarded tablet users that can't go to the control panel because it's too hard to click on icons and then the dialogs and combo, checkboxes, etc., are too small for their big fat fingers. It's a fucking dumbed down half baked tablet control panel...

Thing is I never signed up for a tablet OS. I purchased Windows 8, not Tablet 0.5... I don't really mind if they add crap for touchscreens, but it's still a desktop OS and I expect to fully function as such. As is, as I said, I can adapt, but all those changes, going from Vista and XP, the Win8 GUI isn't an amelioration, it's half retarded and useless because it's aimed at touchscreen/tablet users which really makes up what, less 1% of Windows 8 users?

Enhanced value or excellence. Make better. Like I said, let's face it, nobody fucking use touchscreens for their PCs. How many people do you know who use touchscreens to control their PC? LMFAO, I know of nobody. So MS making changes to their desktop OS to accommodate is fucking retarded and is of NO FUCKING BENEFIT to 99.9% of Windows users.

It's like having a staircase in font of the building where you have 5 stairs. It's very easy and fast to go up those five stairs. But if all of a sudden the priority becomes to accommodate handicapped folk in wheelchairs, and the replace the 5 stairs with 2 ramps, one heading right and then making a U turn to go back left, and the stairs are now gone, and it takes more time and effort to get from point A to point B, it's not a god damn improvement. Sure, now handicapped can go up the ramps, and for them it's better, but not for the rest of us. Now it takes more fucking time and effort going up the ramp and taking the detour, and that's not improvement, even if now it supports wheelchairs.

That's the problem with Windows8. All the improvements are not fucking improvements. It's to accommodate tablet/touchscreen users which are basically non-existent. For everybody else, it's just a bigger pain in the ass now. To go back to the stairs example, an improvement might have been electrical stairs. Then yeah, it goes faster and you have to devote less time and energy to go up and down. That's an improvement. The fucking detour ramp is not. And that seems to be the extent of the improvements, tablet/touchscreen interfaces to accommodate tablet/touchscreen users.

Quote:

Without knowing what is important to you, it's impossible to tell if the OS provides this stuff for you.

It's not about me, it's about improving the OS; making it faster, more logical, easier to use, etc. These might all have been design goals for MS, but that doesn't mean that they have succeeded in their changes. They obviously did not, using Win8, many things are unarguably worse...

Quote:

Quote:

users who can't handle the fucking control panel,

This goes back to waht i was saying before. Windows targets a userbase of more than a billion people. If it upsets you that work has been done to improve things for a segment of that userbase that is *not like you*, then there's not much that can be done to help.

It has basically two segments to please. 1) People who are brand new and have never used a MS product and/or who don't know the basics and 2) the people who come from previous MS OS and are familiar with previous versions. The changes don't improve the experience for either of those, because not only will they need learn the new UI, they'll likely have to navigate the existing control panel. MS has basically made things more complex and less user friendly by once again duplicating and splitting up settings... Again, not an improvement.

Just think about it for two seconds. XP: Go to Start -> Settings -> Control panel -> User Accounts. Manage from there.Win8 Go to bottom right popup menu -> Settings -> Change PC Settings -> Users. Then oh no you can't do that from there. You have to go to bottom right popup menu -> settings -> control panel -> User accounts. What's the difference between PC Settings and control panel? Oh, one is the new interface the other the old one... Why can't you set all settings there? Probably because MS didn't have enough time to implement all features there. How do you know where what setting is where? Oh you have to guess and experiment It's a fucking joke.

Quote:

Quote:

oh, which has now been neutered btw because now part of the settings are under pc settings and you've got to navigate through these settings through these tablet interfaces, oh, and we've moved shit around to confuse you and put things where they don't belong, like shut down your computer is now under settings and "add a new user" is under "manager another account",

"add a new user" is under "PC Settings | Users" which strikes me as fairly reasonable and simple.

- Except that the only way to get there from the control panel is under "manager another account" which is obtuse as shit.- Except that none of the other settings are there, for example, account type - Except that it's a fucking fullscreen app so you can't have say a window on the side containing an email with a username you have to write, you have to alt-tab because of the new fucking retarded fullscreen config window

Is that enough annoyances/stupidities for you? You really believe it's better this way than it was in previous OSes?

Quote:

I also know from personal experience that the new settings screen score much better on usability than the older one for most user groups. As such, it seems like a fairly positive "improvement" to the system, for the large majority of users which find the old one overcomplicated.

I don't know your context but in my context, a proficient windows user, it's a big step backwards. In most enterprises, most of the users couldn't be bothered to take their heads out of their asses when it concerns OS, and they'll have technical staff on hand to handle account creation, permissions, etc. So the point is a bit moot.

For the average PC user, again, maybe if one day they finish the work they started and make a complete GUI to replace the control panel, then it might be something. But right now, it's an utterly moronic god damn fucking awful piece of shit OS/interface. It's redundant, it's incomplete, it splits things it shouldn't split, it's extremely counter-intuitive, it's god damn motherfucking awful.

I want improvements, not inane bullshit about a new dumbed down control panel for tablet users who can't handle the fucking control panel, oh, which has now been neutered btw because now part of the settings are under pc settings and you've got to navigate through these settings through these tablet interfaces, oh, and we've moved shit around to confuse you and put things where they don't belong, like shut down your computer is now under settings and "add a new user" is under "manager another account", oh and we'll open that shit up in the new modern tablet interface to piss you off, oh, and we won't allow you to close it, this window you have to drag from the top, which wont' work for the start window because it's not a window like that new GUI 'app' window metro wahtever that you can't close with escape, but the start you can close to escape, sometimes, if you've been to your desktop first, and then once you're done with the metro pc settings thing, we'll return you to the fuckign start window instead of the desktop to mess you up, etc etc etc...

A bit of irony: Closing an application by dragging from the top to the bottom doesn't work with my HTC 8x. I don't know if it works with other Windows Phones or touch enabled PCs and tablets but on my phone it's a no go.

That's the problem with Windows8. All the improvements are not fucking improvements. It's to accommodate tablet/touchscreen users which are basically non-existent. For everybody else, it's just a bigger pain in the ass now. To go back to the stairs example, an improvement might have been electrical stairs. Then yeah, it goes faster and you have to devote less time and energy to go up and down. That's an improvement. The fucking detour ramp is not. And that seems to be the extent of the improvements, tablet/touchscreen interfaces to accommodate tablet/touchscreen users.

There are other improvements that have nothing to do with tablet users: new task manager, better sleep/hibernate and boot times, better file explorer, BitLocker in the Pro edition.

In that case, there are many 'improvements'. Indeed, going back to Win7 is extremely difficult for me due to the many improvements i've come to depend on. Heck, just the pausing ability alone in Explorer is great, not to mention the auto syncing of many settings and whatnot so that i make a change on one machine, and it shows up on the rest.

Quote:

Like I said, let's face it, nobody fucking use touchscreens for their PCs. How many people do you know who use touchscreens to control their PC? LMFAO, I know of nobody.

You're saying that MS should make decisions based on your anecdotal evidence?

That's like saying that they shouldn't have adopted the mouse since there was likely a time when you didn't know anyone who used a mouse. (If you're actually that old).

Quote:

It's like having a staircase in font of the building where you have 5 stairs. It's very easy and fast to go up those five stairs. But if all of a sudden the priority becomes to accommodate handicapped folk in wheelchairs, and the replace the 5 stairs with 2 ramps, one heading right and then making a U turn to go back left, and the stairs are now gone,

What stairs are gone? Outside of the start menu, pretty much all of Win7 is still there.

Quote:

Quote:

Without knowing what is important to you, it's impossible to tell if the OS provides this stuff for you.

It's not about me, it's about improving the OS; making it faster,

It is faster.

Quote:

more logical, easier to use,

It's easier to use for me. But YMMV. Things like the new task manager, improved explorer and win-x alone make it easier for me.

Quote:

It has basically two segments to please. 1) People who are brand new and have never used a MS product and/or who don't know the basics and 2) the people who come from previous MS OS and are familiar with previous versions.

This is not true. There is a third group, people who came from a previous MS OS but still *do not know 'the basics'*. Indeed, your very description is loaded with bias. You assume that certain things are 'basics', and yet i think you'd be surprised to find how many people don't even meet your expectations there.

Quote:

The changes don't improve the experience for either of those, because not only will they need learn the new UI, they'll likely have to navigate the existing control panel.

Why would new users have to navigate the existing control panel? Why would people coming from a previous version need to? What tasks do you expect would be common enough for those groups to need to do that?

Quote:

Win8 Go to bottom right popup menu -> Settings -> Change PC Settings -> Users. Then oh no you can't do that from there.

Why not? I can do it fine from there...

Quote:

- Except that the only way to get there from the control panel is under "manager another account" which is obtuse as shit.

What? I can get there through the steps i already mentioned. At this point i think there may be something wrong with your install.

Quote:

In most enterprises, most of the users couldn't be bothered to take their heads out of their asses when it concerns OS, and they'll have technical staff on hand to handle account creation, permissions, etc. So the point is a bit moot.

You're ignoring lots or novice regular users in the consumer market. They don't have a 'technical staff on hand'.

In that case, there are many 'improvements'. Indeed, going back to Win7 is extremely difficult for me due to the many improvements i've come to depend on. Heck, just the pausing ability alone in Explorer is great, not to mention the auto syncing of many settings and whatnot so that i make a change on one machine, and it shows up on the rest.

I've not said there was no improvements, just that many of the things you've claimed were improvements weren't.

Quote:

Quote:

Like I said, let's face it, nobody fucking use touchscreens for their PCs. How many people do you know who use touchscreens to control their PC? LMFAO, I know of nobody.

You're saying that MS should make decisions based on your anecdotal evidence?

It's not anecdotal evidence, it's statistical evidence. Take the number of monitors sold in 2012 & note the % that are touch screens. Fact is MS is pushing a feature which is largely irrelevant to the majority of its customers, and it's basically forcing that change upon them. They could have made a normal Windows 8 version, and a Tablet 1 OS. But they knew the Tablet OS would have been a flop, and they wanted to push their metro apps and metro UI for commercial purposes, not for user benefit.

Quote:

That's like saying that they shouldn't have adopted the mouse since there was likely a time when you didn't know anyone who used a mouse. (If you're actually that old).

Not at all, Windows had driver support for mouses since Windows 1.0. It's not like all of a sudden half of the keyboard functionality were removed and replaced by the mouse... For 'PC Settings' vs 'Control Panel' analogy, would be if they had disabled the letters u i o k l m from the keyboard and added it on a window where people had to click these with the mouse...

Quote:

Quote:

It's like having a staircase in font of the building where you have 5 stairs. It's very easy and fast to go up those five stairs. But if all of a sudden the priority becomes to accommodate handicapped folk in wheelchairs, and the replace the 5 stairs with 2 ramps, one heading right and then making a U turn to go back left, and the stairs are now gone,

What stairs are gone? Outside of the start menu, pretty much all of Win7 is still there.

Right, and the stairs are basically the ramp, it's incline instead of just 5 steps. And the new ramp takes more time and energy to get to point A to point B. So arguably, the 5 stairs are still there, they're just placed differently, but you can still get to point A to point B, it just take more time and energy to do so, but it's an improvement.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Without knowing what is important to you, it's impossible to tell if the OS provides this stuff for you.

It's not about me, it's about improving the OS; making it faster,

It is faster.

Not in the context we are discussing. The OS might have better 'performance' than the other OS, that is, being faster at running programs for instance, but the GUIs, for user configuration, shutting down the PC, etc., are all slower because they've fucked up and added absurd steps to every process, steps such as launching a fucking retarded fullscreen GUI to add a fucking user instead of doing it in the control panel's user accounts.

Quote:

Quote:

more logical, easier to use,

It's easier to use for me. But YMMV. Things like the new task manager, improved explorer and win-x alone make it easier for me.

Again, you're switching subjects. If it's easier to use for you, it might as well be because you're illogical and/or a MS employee. Do you work for MS btw? Seems like being illogical is a common trait amongst the MS family if we're to take Win8...

Quote:

Quote:

It has basically two segments to please. 1) People who are brand new and have never used a MS product and/or who don't know the basics and 2) the people who come from previous MS OS and are familiar with previous versions.

This is not true. There is a third group, people who came from a previous MS OS but still *do not know 'the basics'*. Indeed, your very description is loaded with bias. You assume that certain things are 'basics', and yet i think you'd be surprised to find how many people don't even meet your expectations there.

Oh the retarded segment you mean, no, they're included in category one: " 1) People who are brand new and have never used a MS product and/or who don't know the basics".

Quote:

Quote:

Win8 Go to bottom right popup menu -> Settings -> Change PC Settings -> Users. Then oh no you can't do that from there.

Why not? I can do it fine from there...

No you can't... Where can you manage accounts?

Spoiler: show

Quote:

Quote:

- Except that the only way to get there from the control panel is under "manager another account" which is obtuse as shit.

What? I can get there through the steps i already mentioned. At this point i think there may be something wrong with your install.

Ugh I doubt so, how do you manage another account from the "pc settings" users GUI then?

Quote:

Quote:

In most enterprises, most of the users couldn't be bothered to take their heads out of their asses when it concerns OS, and they'll have technical staff on hand to handle account creation, permissions, etc. So the point is a bit moot.

You're ignoring lots or novice regular users in the consumer market. They don't have a 'technical staff on hand'.

If you posted the quoted bit the context would be evident, which is probably why you didn't.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:I also know from personal experience that the new settings screen score much better on usability than the older one for most user groups. As such, it seems like a fairly positive "improvement" to the system, for the large majority of users which find the old one overcomplicated.

I don't know your context but in my context, a proficient windows user, it's a big step backwards. In most enterprises, most of the users couldn't be bothered to take their heads out of their asses when it concerns OS, and they'll have technical staff on hand to handle account creation, permissions, etc. So the point is a bit moot.

For the average PC user, again, maybe if one day they finish the work they started and make a complete GUI to replace the control panel, then it might be something. But right now, it's an utterly moronic god damn fucking awful piece of shit OS/interface. It's redundant, it's incomplete, it splits things it shouldn't split, it's extremely counter-intuitive, it's god damn motherfucking awful.

I also know from personal experience that the new settings screen score much better on usability than the older one for most user groups. As such, it seems like a fairly positive "improvement" to the system, for the large majority of users which find the old one overcomplicated.

Is there the possibility that you have hit an instance of the 'New Coke Syndrome' here?

The close gesture is obviously intended for touch interfaces but is not used in the Windows Phone 8 touch interface but is used in a non-touch (for the most part) environment.

Maybe because it's just another aspect of docking? You drag left and right to dock, drag down to close. Windows phone 8 lacks docking hence it doesn't have the drag down to close behavior.

It really doesn't matter. It's obviously something designed for touch enabled devices, used in a class of predominately non-touch enabled devices (PCs), and unused in one class of touch enabled devices (WP8).

The close gesture is obviously intended for touch interfaces but is not used in the Windows Phone 8 touch interface but is used in a non-touch (for the most part) environment.

Maybe because it's just another aspect of docking? You drag left and right to dock, drag down to close. Windows phone 8 lacks docking hence it doesn't have the drag down to close behavior.

It really doesn't matter. It's obviously something designed for touch enabled devices, used in a class of predominately non-touch enabled devices (PCs), and unused in one class of touch enabled devices (WP8).

So the rest of the UI doesn't matter and Microsoft should just add features willy nilly ?

For me, I don't need to spend money just to have the latest. That's why I still use Microsoft Office 2003. It does what I need to do easily and quickly.

For me, I don't need a reason to not spend money to have the latest. I need a reason to spend money. I went to Office Depot down the street, spend a couple of hours playing with Windows8 and it worked fine. But, it wasn't noticeably faster, Windows7 is stable and works fine for me. For me, there is no reason to change.

If it were noticeably faster, I'd switch. If Windows7 had significant problems for me, I'd switch. If Windows8 had some dynamite feature I needed or wanted, I'd switch. So far, all of that comes down on the side of sticking with Windows7...and Office 2003.

For me, I don't need to spend money just to have the latest. That's why I still use Microsoft Office 2003. It does what I need to do easily and quickly.

For me, I don't need a reason to not spend money to have the latest. I need a reason to spend money. I went to Office Depot down the street, spend a couple of hours playing with Windows8 and it worked fine. But, it wasn't noticeably faster, Windows7 is stable and works fine for me. For me, there is no reason to change.

If it were noticeably faster, I'd switch. If Windows7 had significant problems for me, I'd switch. If Windows8 had some dynamite feature I needed or wanted, I'd switch. So far, all of that comes down on the side of sticking with Windows7...and Office 2003.

I'm of the same mindset. If what you have already does what you need in an acceptable way then stick with it. Until recently my fastest computer was my Q6600 Gateway which I purchased over five years ago. I recently purchased a new Mac Mini because I'm starting to do some video work. While the PC would be OK given I don't do a lot of video work the Mini does it much faster. About six times as fast for some of the tasks I do (and I'm not talking seconds, I'm talking going from six hours to under an hour for some things.

With that said I had a number of reasons for buying Windows 8. First and foremost is it helps me better do my job as I deal with technology and having hands on experience with it is definitely helpful. Second was the price...at $38 for the Professional upgrade DVD (Micro Center special) it was a no brainer. I ended up buying two copies one of which remains unopened. I doubt I would ever pay $200 for the non-discounted version (IMO Microsoft needs to significantly lower their upgrade pricing) instead opting to wait until I purchased a new PC with it pre-installed. Third I'm curious about the new way of using the OS. I think Modern could be a great way to simplify computer use for the "average" user. Unfortunately there are a number of rough edges with it at this time. It suffers from the typical 1.0 types of issues. I suspect Microsoft will polish and improve it over time. Likewise as applications become available I think the experience will improve. The included applications provide the barest of functionality and, IMO, do more harm to Modern than they do good.

The close gesture is obviously intended for touch interfaces but is not used in the Windows Phone 8 touch interface but is used in a non-touch (for the most part) environment.

Maybe because it's just another aspect of docking? You drag left and right to dock, drag down to close. Windows phone 8 lacks docking hence it doesn't have the drag down to close behavior.

It really doesn't matter. It's obviously something designed for touch enabled devices, used in a class of predominately non-touch enabled devices (PCs), and unused in one class of touch enabled devices (WP8).

Not sure I agree. Dragging down from top actually isn't all that great of a touch gesture IMO - the top is the least accessible of the four edges in typical slate / touch laptop postures, and then you have to move your finger across the entire height of the display. OTOH with mouse, the edges are all equally accessible, and thanks to acceleration there's less effort involved in getting to the other edge. Although it's true that dragging in general is more awkward with a mouse, but it's really not that different than the mouse actions for snap and maximize (by grabbing hold of a window from the top titlebar, and dragging it to an edge) that already existed in Windows 7.

As for phones, their ergonomics are pretty different - you normally hold a slate or touch laptop with two hands from the edges, while you normally hold a phone with one hand - so the interfaces might be expected to be different.

In that case, there are many 'improvements'. Indeed, going back to Win7 is extremely difficult for me due to the many improvements i've come to depend on. Heck, just the pausing ability alone in Explorer is great, not to mention the auto syncing of many settings and whatnot so that i make a change on one machine, and it shows up on the rest.

just that many of the things you've claimed were improvements weren't.

Such as?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Like I said, let's face it, nobody fucking use touchscreens for their PCs. How many people do you know who use touchscreens to control their PC? LMFAO, I know of nobody.

You're saying that MS should make decisions based on your anecdotal evidence?

It's not anecdotal evidence, it's statistical evidence. Take the number of monitors sold in 2012 & note the % that are touch screens. Fact is MS is pushing a feature which is largely irrelevant to the majority of its customers, and it's basically forcing that change upon them. They could have made a normal Windows 8 version, and a Tablet 1 OS. But they knew the Tablet OS would have been a flop, and they wanted to push their metro apps and metro UI for commercial purposes, not for user benefit.

And they could have made a Windows Mouse version, and a Windows non-mouse version. And a windows GUI version and a Windows console version. etc. etc.

Quote:

Quote:

That's like saying that they shouldn't have adopted the mouse since there was likely a time when you didn't know anyone who used a mouse. (If you're actually that old).

Not at all, Windows had driver support for mouses since Windows 1.0. It's not like all of a sudden half of the keyboard functionality were removed and replaced by the mouse...

And, similarly, it's not like "all of a sudden have of the mouse funcitonality was remove and replaced by touch". I have several machines with no touch capability at all. I don't care. I'm not hindered by Windows supporting touch.

Quote:

Quote:

What stairs are gone? Outside of the start menu, pretty much all of Win7 is still there.

Right, and the stairs are basically the ramp, it's incline instead of just 5 steps. And the new ramp takes more time and energy to get to point A to point B. So arguably, the 5 stairs are still there, they're just placed differently, but you can still get to point A to point B, it just take more time and energy to do so, but it's an improvement.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Without knowing what is important to you, it's impossible to tell if the OS provides this stuff for you.

It's not about me, it's about improving the OS; making it faster,

It is faster.

Not in the context we are discussing. The OS might have better 'performance' than the other OS, that is, being faster at running programs for instance, but the GUIs, for user configuration, shutting down the PC, etc., are all slower

Says who? You? You've actually measured this over a large sample of users? Because i've seen data that shows that user configuration is actually *faster* because people find it easier to discover and change settings in teh *new system*.

Shutting down speed is also not actually measured to be significantly slower. And given how rare shutting down is (and how it's getting rarer month by month) *who the fuck cares if it's slightly slower than before*.

Quote:

because they've fucked up and added absurd steps to every process, steps such as launching a fucking retarded fullscreen GUI to add a fucking user

Have you considered that for many users this new system for adding a user might actually be simpler and easier for them to handle?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

more logical, easier to use,

It's easier to use for me. But YMMV. Things like the new task manager, improved explorer and win-x alone make it easier for me.

Again, you're switching subjects. If it's easier to use for you, it might as well be because you're illogical and/or a MS employee.

Fortunately, anecdotal data isn't used for these sorts of things. Actual studying of users using the old and new system can be used for the determination.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

It has basically two segments to please. 1) People who are brand new and have never used a MS product and/or who don't know the basics and 2) the people who come from previous MS OS and are familiar with previous versions.

This is not true. There is a third group, people who came from a previous MS OS but still *do not know 'the basics'*. Indeed, your very description is loaded with bias. You assume that certain things are 'basics', and yet i think you'd be surprised to find how many people don't even meet your expectations there.

Oh the retarded segment you mean, no, they're included in category one: " 1) People who are brand new and have never used a MS product and/or who don't know the basics".

They're not brand new. Nor are they retarded. Indeed, it's pretty dismaying to see you so blindly oblivious to such a large group and their needs. They're just not computer experts. They're ordinary consumers and they're not looking for a complicated, uber ppowerful system with tons of knobs and switches. They'd like something that works well OOB, and which is fairly simple for them to change if need be.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

In most enterprises, most of the users couldn't be bothered to take their heads out of their asses when it concerns OS, and they'll have technical staff on hand to handle account creation, permissions, etc. So the point is a bit moot.

You're ignoring lots or novice regular users in the consumer market. They don't have a 'technical staff on hand'.

If you posted the quoted bit the context would be evident, which is probably why you didn't.

Quote:I also know from personal experience that the new settings screen score much better on usability than the older one for most user groups. As such, it seems like a fairly positive "improvement" to the system, for the large majority of users which find the old one overcomplicated.